P51D, P51K and Mustangs Supplied to RAAF in Australia.

[Bf109K4]

With regard to the P51 Mustangs can anyone please explain the difference between the P51D and P51K Versions that were apparently used by UK based US fighter squadron.

This site:

http://www.cebudanderson.com/viewfromtheline.htm

states that it is something to do with "cuffs" on or of the propeller. I'm sorry to say that my understanding of cuffs is things that surround your wrist when wearing a shirt, so I am a little bit confused here.

Also does anyone know the version supplied to the RAAF. The suggestion is that it was actually the P51K which I had always assumed was produced as a export model but the above site indicates otherwise. This was based on access to some RAAF log books some years ago.

Allegedly at least 50 odd of these Mustangs were ferried up to the Korea late in the War but their subsequent use and fate has always been unclear to me. Who operated them and in what role?

In the original ferry mission the Mustangs were equipped with drop tanks and unwisely unarmed (no rounds in the guns for weight saving purposes) but were then "bounced" by Communist fighters (type unknown) and ended up drop tankless where ever they could land with some damaged on landing etc but none damaged due to actual gunfire.

The suggestion is that very few of these aircraft survived the war due to incidents both I the air and on the ground and also due to troop action. Once again I have little on this. tHanks anyway.

[Randy Haskin]

There's an excellent post/thread on the P-51D vs K topic right here on the WIX:

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... =p51k+p51d

[Bf109K4]

Yes thanks for that, I thought that once in the field there would have been a lot of mix n' match but sorry to say still don't understand the meaning of the word "cuffs" on props, can anyone explain please?

[dj51d]

A Cuff is the thicker section of the blade at the root. In this photo the cuffs are very easy to spot, as they are a different color than the rest of the blade.

[Bf109K4]

Thanks very much for that. I can know recall that many of the photos I saw of the RAAF Mustangs did not have this feature and were often referred to as P51K's which means that they were supplied new direct from the US or more likely from UK sources as some have this louvre modification as well as a slightly modified canopy.

The many of the pilots from the Mustang squadron(s) also took part in the early trials of the (and I am going to get this spelling wrong I know) "Indervict". This was originally the great white hope of the pilotless aircraft future (that cost several pilots lives) and ended up as a target drone in RAAF service.

[Jack Cook]

To add to the confusion for you.
The P-51K also used the Aeroproducts prop.
I don't believe it was standard on the P-51D.
From what I've noticed the cuffed props are harder
to come by. I have a friend who has one with a
fairly fresh overhaul with lots a meat on the blades
and that all important yellow tag. He's been offered
over $100,00 for it! Sorry no sale.

[Bf109K4]

Good Lord you don't know any good Taiwanese fabricators do you? Can't be any more difficult than knocking out a hookey copy of Windows XP can it?

[Bf109K4]

Whilst trawling for information on P51's and AD-6's I came accross this gem which I wonder might answer my bit on P51's being sent to Korea:

"We should have learned the lesson of air combat in the Pacific fourteen years ago. The Air Force put its newest jet fighters into Korea, only to discover that they were too fast to support the ground forces. The pilots could not sight their targets at supersonic speeds, nor could they return soon enough for a second strike, nor pull up in the face of Korea's precipitous mountains. So the Air Force took its P-51 Mustangs out of moth balls, and the Navy flew AD-6 Skyraiders from carriers in the Sea of Japan."

It came from here:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/tear.htm

and was written in 1964. I have not digested the whole article but it it gives a sideways view of air combat, air ground combat and particularly operations in the early days of Vietnam. I wonder what todays Iraq bound pilot might make of it!

Since many of the early Mustangs operated by US fighter squadrons in the UK in 1942 and 43 seem to have been hand me downs from the RAF with overpainted roundels etc I think there is a distinct chance that we did it again in Korea. Gives a whole new angle to the words "lend lease" I suppose.

[Steve T]

Hi--

To add further to the confusion...The K Mustang was a Dallas-built variant of the D, fitted with the hollow-steel Aeroproducts prop; the D model, built both at Inglewood and Dallas, had the more common Hamilton Standard solid aluminum prop...BUT not all "cuffless" props on Mustangs are Aeroproducts, in fact these days very few are. From the 1946 period onward it's been common for Mustangs to have "cuffless" Hamiltons up front. The good news from a recognition standpoint is that the "cuffless" blades don't look at all alike. The Hamilton blades appear more "linear" and normally have a slightly squarish tip; the Aeroproducts blades are more curvaceous with narrower, elliptical tips. The only K model Mustang I can think of that actually has the Aeroproducts prop on it today is the ex-Cleveland NAR P-51K "Second Fiddle" at the Crawford Museum in Cleveland. Are any Ks flying with Aeroproducts props??

S.

[SparrowV12]

The "D" model Mustang uses, as discussed, a Ham Standard prop which can be of 2 types-- either the Paddle blade or the Cuff blade. There are 2 differences between a K & D, the most obvious is the Aerproducts Prop vs Ham Standard, but the 2nd is a bit less noticeable, the filter cover inlets on the chin cowl are of a slightly differant shape as well. As far as I know, there aren't any Mustangs that are identified as "K's" flying with the Aeroprop. There are a few "D's" running around with "H" model Aerproducts prop's tho.

My 2 bits, Sparrow

[Jack Cook]

The Air Force put its newest jet fighters into Korea, only to discover that they were too fast to support the ground forces.

Speed wasn't really a deeisive factor at the beginning of the war, range was. The Af was flying from Japan and the F-80s had about 10-15 minutes TOT. The F-82s were the only operational fighters the AF had with the range (until the 35th and 8th FIWs got their 51s back) in fact 20th Fg ace ace Red Feiblekorn was KIA very early on in a F-82. After UN forces had pushed the Reds back and the jets could operate from S. Korea, F-80s/84s/86s operated in the ground support role with excellent results.

[Bf109K4]

Jack....I don't think "The Nation" was or is much less today a definitive publication on aviation but it is interesting how the non technical percieved the failings of man and equipment or more in this case of equipment alone in that article.

I think "The Nation" at that time, according to "Gore Vidal", was a seat of what has been described as "liberal jewish journalism" which seems at odds with the article which whilst not pro war I think is trying to get across the idea that the troops in the field had not got he kit for the job.

I agree though about range being a problem. Looking at many of the early jet designs and many of the naval ones I would have thought that getting enough fuel and ordinance onto them was a magicians feat as well.

The Korean terrain does not lend itself well to WWII avionics wrapped in an early jet body and heavy loads. As you say when they could be operated from bases on the land they could aquit themselves well but only I suspect because their load factors were far less.

[Mick Grinter]

Might be wrong but i think i was told the K prop is 11" shorter.That's the only real difrence between the D and K.
Cuffs are banned in Australia aparently?

[SparrowV12]

The Aeroproducts prop is 11 FT even, only 2" shorter.

Sparrow

[Bf109K4]

Having established what "cuffs" are on a propeller, what exactly is their purpose? Is it to stiffen the blade and prevent "flutter"?